BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Home Bible Study

 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
 
EvskiG
20:14 / 26.03.07
I think the repeated references to fig trees in the Old and New Testaments might simply be because they were (and are) common in the Middle East.

(Hmm, looks like figs may have been one of the first cultivated crops, 1000 years or more before rye or wheat. Makes it perfect for the Garden of Eden.)

Of course, stories in the New Testament often (quite deliberately) mirror stories or prophesies in the Old Testament.

From the comments in Conversation, looks like people remain interested in this topic.

What do people want to do next -- discuss Adam and Eve some more, move on to the story of Cain and Abel, or hit something from the New Testament for a change?
 
 
grant
02:49 / 27.03.07
I vote for Cain and his stinking carnivore brother.

It's occurred to me, after reading Eden and then a couple of the Psalms that the major theme of the Tanakh (or should I say Old Testament?) really is obedience, from beginning to end. It's an interesting take on the idea of a Book of the Law -- there are other religious texts, as you go farther east, that are all about law, but that seems to be about natural law, or guidelines for how things work (thinking here of both Buddha and Confucius), rather than edicts that humans can decide to disobey.

The first crime is disobedience, which leads to knowledge. The second crime is murder and an attempted cover-up.
 
 
Princess
06:51 / 27.03.07
Cain and Abel, just because I love the poetry of it.
 
 
jentacular dreams
10:32 / 27.03.07
In its strict sense a mystery is a supernatural truth, one that of its very nature lies above the finite intelligence.

True, both Christianity and Hinduism have systems in which deity can in some sense be understood as both single and multiple. But I don't believe Hinduism considers this relationship to be by definition incapable of being understood.


The key to it is finite intelligence. In both faiths, truly understanding the "simultaneous multiplicity of the single divine" lies beyond earthly life. In Hinduism moskha is the realisation that oneself is part of the greater God-soul, and the resulting dissolution of self-identity. In Christianity, as I understand it, heaven is a new eden, a paradise without separation between God and 'man'. Without separation implies to my mind that the inhabitants of heaven will at the very least be reconciled to the nature and actions of god (though an interpretation along the Hindu lines is more than possible).

That said, I sometimes wonder whether there could be more than a single omni-god. Even if there were hundreds, surely being all-knowing would mean that they would act in concurrence?

Figs have as far as I know often considered symbolic of the female genitals*. So in that sense, for eve to offer of a fig to adam, was to offer herself.

Aye to Abel and his Grendel-siring sibling. Would analysis of any books outside Genesis be worthy of their own threads?

* obviously this symbolism may have been sourced from/exaggerated by the link to Genesis.
 
 
EvskiG
14:12 / 27.03.07
So on to Genesis 4. The Cain and Abel story is short, so I'll put the whole thing here.

1. Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, and she said, "I have acquired a man with the Lord."

2. And she continued to bear his brother Abel, and Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was a tiller of the soil.

3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.

4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.

5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

6. And the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen?

7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."

8. And Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and slew him.

9. And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"

10. And He said, "What have you done? Hark! Your brother's blood cries out to Me from the earth.

11. And now, you are cursed even more than the ground, which opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand.

12. When you till the soil, it will not continue to give its strength to you; you shall be a wanderer and an exile in the land."

13. And Cain said to the Lord, "Is my iniquity too great to bear?

14. Behold You have driven me today off the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from before You, and I will be a wanderer and an exile in the land, and it will be that whoever finds me will kill me."

15. And the Lord said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be wrought upon him sevenfold," and the Lord placed a mark on Cain that no one who find him slay him.

16. And Cain went forth from before the Lord, and he dwelt in the land of the wanderers, to the east of Eden.

Lots of weirdness here.

First, as Grant noted, we've moved from disobedience to murder. Lots more evil to come (the Flood, Babel, etc.).

Once again we've got a new God. Not Elohim (God(s)) or YHVH Elohim (Lord God), but just plain YHVH.

We have a conflict between two competing ways of life -- farming and herding. God seems to come out firmly on the side of herding, which isn't surprising, since (as I understand it), that was what the ancient Hebrews did.

Why accept the animals but not the veggies? Again, it might be a sign that herding is favored over farming. Or, according to some, it might be because Cain merely offered "the fruit of the soil" while Abel offered his best stuff -- "the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest."

How did God accept Abel's sacrifice? According to Rashi, with a big-ass blast of fire that consumed it. Cool.

There's a Hebrew play on words in 4:1 -- "Cain" (קין) is similar to "acquired" (קניתי).

In Hebrew tradition, Cain was conceived and possibly born before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.

Note that the translation above translates "the Land of Nod" as "the land of wanderers." This often is considered to be no particular place, and just means that Cain wandered aimlessly.

Here's some clever commentary from the Genesis Rabbah:

To protect Cain from being killed, a dog was given him, who accompanied him and protected him against all comers.

When Cain went abroad, after killing Abel, he met his father Adam, who expressed his surprise at Cain's life being spared. The son explained that he owed his life to the act of repentance, and to his pleading that his sin was greater than he could bear. Adam thus received a hint of his error in not having fallen back upon repentance instead of putting the blame on Eve. He there and then composed a hymn, now known as the Ninety-second Psalm, which, in the course of time, became lost or forgotten. Moses, however, found it and used it, and it became known as the prayer of Moses, the man of God.

Cain was a twin, for with him was born a girl; and Abel was one of three, for with him came two girls.

It is an error to think that Cain was stronger than Abel, for the contrary was the case, and in the quarrel that arose Cain would have fared worse had he not appealed to Abel for compassion and then attacked him unawares and killed him.
 
 
EvskiG
14:33 / 27.03.07
Oh -- if people want to know the original Hebrew names of the characters so far, unless I'm mistaken they're

A-dahm' (Adam)

Cha'-va (Eve)

Ka'-yin (Cain)

He'-vel (Abel)
 
 
jentacular dreams
15:31 / 27.03.07
Young's Literal has an interesting deviation: rather than being a farmer/tiller, verse 2 describes Cain as "servant of the ground". Does this lie contrary to being a "servant of the lord" in that he served his earthly desires?

And again the "East of Eden". Is this an ongoing fairytale-land reference (As far away as Selidor), or does it chart an actual progression moving ever Eastwards?

(If the latter, does it relate to the later move Westward to join Joseph, and the subsequent move East under Moses? If so every time the Jews move East they seem to become stronger/more independant, whilst in the West they are more limited (either in Eden or Egypt).
 
 
grant
17:12 / 27.03.07
* Land of Nod. I think there's something solar about the west/east thing, but I ONLY think this because I've read it before in throwawy references (place where the sun sets, place where the sun rises). I don't really know more than that. I do think there's something going on there, though. The Euphrates and Tigris locate Eden somewhere in southern Iraq, which east of Israel... but not *that* far east. And east of that is... Persia (now Iran).

* Ninety-second Psalm. Here's the text of Psalm 92 in the New American Bible. It does refer to planting things in the ground as a way to give praise, but the footnotes in this edition don't mention Cain at all.

* 7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."
I'm curious -- is this a Jewish translation? I'm a little surprised by the use of the word "sin" -- I didn't think "sin" as such was as much of a thing as adhering to the Law and doing good works.

Anyway, it seems like this verse is important for framing what happens next in an ethical sense. In the NAB, it's translated: 7 If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master."

And has a footnote talking about demonology:
Demon lurking: in Hebrew, robes, literally "croucher," is used here, like the similar Akkadian term rabisu, to designate a certain kind of evil spirit.

Catholics, you know. Fond of personifying everything.

Anyway, it's interesting that here we get the first glimpse of the redemption process -- the idea that after the expulsion from Eden, transgressions are forgivable. That story about running into Adam seems important in this light.

And, ***[[SPOILERS]]***, the rest of the Torah (and, for that matter, the whole history section of the Tanakh) this is a repeated motif: the Israelites make good with God, then mess up, get struck down, and someone pops up to guide them back into the proper spiritual path (which is submission to God's Law). It's all about falling away and then finding redemption. Again and again and again.

***[[END SPOILERS]]***
 
 
EvskiG
17:59 / 27.03.07
Young's Literal has an interesting deviation: rather than being a farmer/tiller, verse 2 describes Cain as "servant of the ground". Does this lie contrary to being a "servant of the lord" in that he served his earthly desires?

The literal phrase is abad adamah (עבד אדמה), servant of the land.

Interestingly adamah, land or earth, is a play on words on "Adam," Cain's father. So it also suggests that first-born son Cain is the servant of his father.
 
 
EvskiG
20:35 / 27.03.07
I believe that "East of Eden" essentially means "far away in an indeterminate place."

Here's good ol' Rashi:

to the east of Eden

There his father [Adam] was exiled when he was driven out of the Garden of Eden, as it is said (3:24) "and He stationed at the east of the Garden of Eden, etc., to guard" the way of approach to the Garden, from which we can learn that Adam was there.

And we find that the easterly direction always offers asylum for murderers, as it is said (Deut. 4:41): "Then Moses separated, etc." [three cities of refuge]in the direction of the sunrise." Another explanation [of this term is that] wherever he went, the earth would quake beneath him, and the people would say, "Go away from him; this is the one who killed his brother."


Folks also might want to check out the freaky 5th Century pseudoepigraphical Conflict of Adam and Eve With Satan.

Cain and his love for his twin sister Luluwa, Abel and his twin sister Aklia, Satan, and all sorts of goodies.

Also, note that some people think this is an updated version of the Sumerian tale in which Dumuzi (god of shepherds) and Enkimdu (god of farmers) fought for the favor of Inanna.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:19 / 27.03.07
This is all fascinating. I wonder what we can now do about the continuing Genesis conversation which posters are insisting happens within this thread? Blake Head tried to shift Genesis conversation across to its own thread, but people appear to be rigidly against that idea. I do think the Temple would really benefit from a series of dedicated 'Book of the Bible' threads. This thread was about discussing books of the bible, not the discussion of the books themeselves.

In the Genesis thread and by PM I have proposed that we move the discussion over. I have had no response to these posts or PM's. Ev.G, clearly you would prefer it to stay here as you have ignored my posts and carried on posting here. I am sure your reasons for doing that are very valid, so if you cannot agree to post in the relevant thread, perhaps we should change the name of this one to include Genesis discussion? Of course, that will mean that the first 'Book of the Bible - Genesis' thread is horribly messy and disorganised and it would have been so much more helpful for people to post their discussion in the correct thread.

Can I ask once more, indeed implore that discussion on Genesis please take place in the relevant thread? We can link to the beginning of this thread over there if your worried about early conversation. It might be fun now to continue talking here and randomly ignore all the reasonable requests including several from the thread starter, but in the future other posters on the board will lose out.
 
 
Olulabelle
21:56 / 27.03.07
(Really not tring to be snippy so deepest apologies if that's how it sounds. I'm really just wanting the board to benefit from what could be wicked 'Book of the Bible' threads. If we do all the discussion here this thread's going to get messy pretty quickly and people will have God all hope of finding relevant parts.)
 
 
EvskiG
22:02 / 27.03.07
Ev.G, clearly you would prefer it to stay here as you have ignored my posts and carried on posting here.

Well, no, not really. Didn't see your PM to me until you drew my attention to it with your post above.

Since the discussion of Genesis in this topic has been vital and ongoing while the discussion in the other topic has been fairly moribund, if the mods really see a need to make a change, I'd suggest switching the titles of the two topics. That seems less likely to kill off this discussion of Genesis than transferring it to the other thread.

Naturally, I'll abide by whatever people prefer, but this really seems like a bizarre quibble over form rather than substance.
 
 
Blake Head
22:30 / 27.03.07
Could we not descend into which thread is best please? I'd still like to see the other thread take off, and am feeling plenty guilty about not contributing to it without feeling criticised.

This thread is genuinely fascinating but it doesn't tell me much about how anyone's reading effects or interacts with their beliefs, which was the original purpose behind this idea. I realise you're invested in having a centralised close reading and examination of Genesis, but there's obviously at least _some_ desire to do both, and there's a sense of confusion about which thread to post in. Certainly this thread has a great deal of material but little sustained discussion. The other thread, which people sort of wavered over to and then came back to this one, has little of either yet, and I think that's due at least in part to a discussion with a certain emphasis being pushed forward with here. There's no point in swapping titles because that isn't what the other thread's about.

And it's just a bit messy I suppose is the real point.

Now I am going off to bed, and if no one has any better ideas overnight, in the morning I wll propose a change in the thread summary along the lines of "Proposal and discussion for group rereading and analysis of Books from the Bible - moving on to a close reading and analysis of the text of Genesis." And we can just lump it if that's awkward. Could anyone who originally said they would like to join in and (in either thread) hasn't say if anything has put them off? After one or both threads get through Genesis we could then return to using this as a parent thread for discussing if and how we'd like to do any future books, either in one main thread or in two separate personal/critical ones. I think the point would be to be less hung up on the distinctions and go with whatever's going to make discussions most fruitful. G'night.
 
 
grant
14:40 / 28.03.07
I'm fine with continuing Cain & Abel in the other thread.

As long as we crosslink here to there and there to here, should be easy to follow the transition....
 
 
jentacular dreams
12:45 / 29.03.07
I'm reluctant to jump threads midway through - I think a title change would be better, but have posted a link to this thread in the other.
 
 
Unconditional Love
12:07 / 01.04.07
Apologies to all concerned for the outbursts on biblical and christian related threads, thou i may have issues, my comments were out of context.
 
  

Page: 123(4)

 
  
Add Your Reply